It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
"All truth passes through three phases:
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is fiercely and violently opposed.
Third, it becomes self-evident."
— Arthur Schopenhauer
German philosopher (1788 - 1860)
reply to post by NewAgeMan
Why would Boeing build a prototype before 2001, when the first aircraft wasn't ordered until 2002? You don't build airplanes to test until you have a firm order in hand. You wind tunnel test until you have a firm order in place. Italy was the launch customer for the KC-767, and didn't award the contract until 2002.
It costs a lot to develop a new plane, even a "bolt on" package like the KC-767. You can't just slap a boom on it and call it a tanker. You have to repipe the fueling system, do wind tunnel testing for aircraft flying near it, to make sure it's not going to flip them or something... It's a lot of work, and it's expensive. So there's no way Boeing would have done it without an order in hand.edit on 12/1/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)[/quote
Bologna ! Order contracts are only issued AFTER said prototypes are determines to meet the criteria set forth by the purchasing agency. Hundreds of millions are spent by Companies competing for a contract.
The loser simply absorbs the loss. It is a serious downside to the process. I assume you are a pilot or hope to be. This process is especially obvious when a branch of the Military opens bids for a new fighter. Two companies are selected, they BOTH invest huge amounts but one wins and the other sucks it up and moves on. Not the best example in this case, however the principal still applies . I normally agree with the majority of your posts, unfortunately this is not one of them.
Laugh if you like.
Mysterious Boeing NOT the United Flight 175 Boeing 767.
This message was sent on Sept 11, at 1323Z (9:23AM Eastern, 20 minutes after the time of the crash) to United Flight 175, tail number N612UA, routed through the PIT remote ground station (Pittsburgh International Airport).
This message was sent on Sept 11, at 1259Z (8:59AM Eastern) to United Flight 175, tail number N612UA, routed through the MDT remote ground station (Harrisburg International Airport, also known as Middleton)..
New York Times
February 23, 2002
A NATION CHALLENGED: THE TRADE CENTER CRASHES; First Tower to Fall Was Hit At Higher Speed, Study Finds
By ERIC LIPTON AND JAMES GLANZ
Researchers trying to explain why the World Trade Center's south tower fell first, though struck second, are focusing on new calculations showing that the passenger jet that hit the south tower had been flying as fast as 586 miles an hour, about 100 miles an hour faster than the other hijacked plane.
The speed of the two planes at impact has been painstakingly estimated using a mix of video, radar and even the recorded sounds of the planes passing overhead.
Two sets of estimates, by government and private scientists, have surfaced, but both show that the plane that hit the south tower at 9:02 a.m., United Airlines Flight 175, approached the trade center at extremely high speed, much faster than American Airlines Flight 11, which hit the north tower at 8:46 a.m.
In fact, the United plane was moving so fast that it was at risk of breaking up in midair as it made a final turn toward the south tower, traveling at a speed far exceeding the 767-200 design limit for that altitude, a Boeing official said.
''These guys exceeded even the emergency dive speed,'' said Liz Verdier, a Boeing spokeswoman. ''It's off the chart.''
Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force – Former Air Force fighter pilot, over 100 combat missions. Commercial pilot for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years. Had previously flown the actual two United airplanes that were hijacked on 9/11.
Article: "'The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S." Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77 could have "descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 270 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon's first floor wall."
"For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible," said Wittenberg, recalling that when he made the jump from Boeing 727s to the highly sophisticated computerized characteristics of the 737s through 767s, it took him considerable time to feel comfortable flying.
Audio Interview, Capt.Russ Wittenberg, 9/16/04
Russel L. Wittenberg Credentials
Russ Wittenberg has numerous FAA certificates ranging from Airline Pilot and Flight Engineer to Ground Instructor and Aircraft Dispatcher. He is certified to fly an incredible range of aircraft including Boeing 707s, 727s, 747s, 757s, 767s and 777s. The supposed aircraft used on 9/11 were Boeing 757s and 767s.
Certificate: AIRLINE TRANSPORT PILOT
• AIRLINE TRANSPORT PILOT AIRPLANE MULTIENGINE LAND
• AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE LAND
• AIRPLANE SINGLE ENGINE SEA
Type Ratings (Note: these are aircraft types)
A/B-707 A/B-720 A/B-727 A/B-737 A/B-747 A/B-757 A/B-767 A/B-777 A/DC-8 A/L-1049 A/LR-JET
DOI : 07/25/1995
Certificate: FLIGHT ENGINEER
Rating: FLIGHT ENGINEER TURBOJET POWERED
DOI : 11/02/1978
Certificate: GROUND INSTRUCTOR
• GROUND INSTRUCTOR ADVANCED
DOI : 11/02/1978
Certificate: AIRCRAFT DISPATCHER
DOI : 11/02/1978
Mr. Wittenberg's flying credentials may be confirmed by contacting:
United States Federal Aviation Administration Registry
Civil Aviation Registry
PO BOX 25082
Oklahoma City, OK 73125
9/11-The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training
by Nila Sagadevan
Boeing - Boeing spokeswoman Leslie Hazzard in this recording saying 500+ mph at 700 feet is impossible.
(Interviewer asks -) "So there's no way the aircraft could be going 500 mph at [700 ft] altitude then?"
Boeing Spokesperson - (Laughs) "Not a chance..."
Laugh if you like.
9/11: Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed
Much controversy has surrounded the speeds reported for the World Trade Center attack aircraft. However, none of the arguments for either side of the debate have been properly based on actual data, until now. Pilots For 9/11 Truth have recently analyzed data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board in terms of a "Radar Data Impact Speed Study" (pdf) in which the NTSB concludes 510 knots and 430 knots for United 175 (South Tower) and American 11 (North Tower), respectively. A benchmark has been set by the October 1999 crash of Egypt Air 990, a 767 which exceeded it's maximum operating limits causing in-flight structural failure, of which data is available to compare to the WTC Attack Aircraft.
Egypt Air 990 (EA990) is a 767 which was reported to have entered a dive and accelerated to a peak speed of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet. Boeing sets maximum operating speeds for the 767 as 360 Knots and .86 Mach. The reason for two airspeed limitations is due to air density at lower vs. higher altitudes. To understand equivalent dynamic pressures on an airframe of low vs. high altitude, there is an airspeed appropriately titled "Equivalent Airspeed" or EAS. EAS is defined as the airspeed at sea level which produces the same dynamic pressure acting on the airframe as the true airspeed at high altitudes.
Pilots For 9/11 Truth have calculated the Equivalent Airspeed for EA990 peak speed of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet as the equivalent dynamic effects of 425 knots at or near sea level. This airspeed is 65 knots over max operating for a 767, 85 knots less than the alleged United 175, and 5 knots less than the alleged American 11. Although it may be probable for the alleged American 11 to achieve such speed as 430 knots is only 5 knots over that of EA990 peak speed, It is impossible for the alleged United 175 to achieve the speeds reported by the NTSB using EA990 as a benchmark.
Pilots For 9/11 Truth have further studied if a 767 could continue controlled flight at such reported speeds. According to the NTSB, EA990 wreckage was found in two distinct debris fields, indicating in-flight structural failure which has been determined to have occurred a few seconds after recording peak speed. Based on EA990, it is impossible for the alleged United 175 to have continued controlled flight at more than 85 knots over the speed which failed the structure of EA990.
Full detailed analysis, including analysis of a recent simulator experiment performed, and interviews with United and American Airlines 757/767 Pilots can be viewed in the new presentation, "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" available at pilotsfor911truth.org.... Although other factors come into play within the transonic ranges, dynamic pressure is dynamic pressure. Math doesn't lie. Boeing needs to release wind tunnel data for the Boeing 767. Despite the fact that the data can be fabricated, such a release of data may alert more pilots and engineers to the extremely excessive speeds reported near sea level for the Boeing 767 in which they can decide for themselves. Update: Since our article on WTC Aircraft Speed Analysis was written, more evidence has been gathered to reflect the research provided by Pilots For 9/11 Truth and in the film "9/11: World Trade Center Attack". A more thorough understanding and explanation of why V speeds are established based on wind tunnel tests performed by the manufacturer is also available virtually making the need to gather documents from Boeing based on wind tunnel testing, moot. We already have their results of such tests in the form of the V Speeds they have established through wind tunnel testing required by definition as outlined in the Illustrated Guide To Aerodynamics and all other related text.
Limits set by the manufacturer based on flight/wind tunnel testing (pdf)
reply to post by OneFreeMan
Laugh if you like.
OFM surely knows this does sound laughable as he has evidenced that
obviously. I have learned not to laugh at anything, someone brings to
the table, considering the OS is laughable in the first place.edit on 5-12-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)
reply to post by leostokes
Ah so you're a Judy Wood DEW (directed energy weapon) Theorist.
I don't see why conventional explosives, albeit probably military grade nano-thermite aka super-thermite, which could actually be painted on in some applications, although in other places direct cutting charges would need to be strategically placed in "bands" around critical core columns, would not be sufficient. In every demolition, in this case a unique, top-down CD, there is always plenty of dust. In fact, the ejecting debris wave including massive quantities of cement dust (and everything else) was actually employed as part of the simulated gravity collapse ruse, in the sense that they tried, albeit unsuccessfully, to hide the explosive ejections in a rapid sequencing all around and down the building, behind the descending debris wave (which is comprised of lots and lots of pulverized cement) as seen in the video.
edit on 4-12-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)
Thanks for your reply and video.
I am not a DEW person. I am looking at evidence of steel turning to dust. How this happens I do not know. It is a new phenomenon.
I do not doubt that super-thermite was used in a controlled demolition at the WTC. The evidence in your video indicates use of explosives.
But there is more than that going on. You see it in your video. Falling girder assemblies trail dust before your eyes. What is the source of this dust?
Here is another example. Notice that much of the dust is rising or hanging in the air instead of falling. And the standing steel column disappears. Look at the dust spewing off the lower part of the column.
edit on 4-12-2013 by leostokes because: add spewing
LOW RES VIDEO on youtube